To be deleted

[nul-points]

hi Nick
i agree, i think you're right on both counts-

- conserving energy is good, but just that on its own wouldn't be the road to a self-runner

- re-cycling energy to do additional work (ie. extra to what you would have expected to do, on the usual single-pass conversion of energy) appears to be opening up the n > 100% door for us

'overunity' can apply to work regardless of any limitations on energy, and i guess that we'll find plenty of ways to re-cycle packets of energy if we start looking


good luck with your Stiffler double-diode ideas

energy is more slippery than jello on a hot plate - make sure you have a good bucket handy

np

[nul-points]

The 2 battery-rundown graphs below provide further confirmation that a proportion of the energy being stored in this circuit is then getting recycled back into the supply storage (rechargeable battery or capacitor) - this recycled energy becomes available to do extra work, eg. by extending the battery runtime at the same power rate

the WiThFeedback circuit has extended the active runtime from the battery to approx 120%, compared to the same circuit when the feedback (read 'Looped') connection is removed

the useful battery voltage range here is taken to be 3.7V down to 3.4V (at which point the Output DC drive level starts to reduce sharply, slightly delayed from the battery voltage decrease

the unlooped circuit runs for  48s  and the WiThFeedback circuit runs for  58s,  providing 20% more work at a comparable level


for these tests, i'm using a pancake coil to generate the pulses (having already successfully tested the circuit with solenoidal, toroidal & multi-core transformers) - the pancake coil is centre-tapped (to form the common connection between primary & secondary), basket-weave, approx 30 turns of 0.45mm copper (aka magnet wire), approx 20mm ID, 75mm OD

it appears to give similar results with or without an adjacent ferrite 'core', but these results are from the tests with ferrite


i suspect that this WiThFeedback circuit concept is not novel...

as usual, Tesla got there first with his Oscillator-Shuttle-Circuits, 'bleeding' or 'siphoning off' a proportion of the total energy being shuttled between 'floating' grounds (see Barrett's paper, submitted to the Louis de Broglie Foundation in the 1990s, discussing Telsa's OSC theory)


TAKE NOTE
i'm happy to continue discussing other member's attempts (with real hardware, not Sim) to replicate the results i'm getting - i think i've provided more than enough detail already - you have now got way more info than i had when i started out on this journey!

i will NOT be entering into discussion with anyone who offers cliches, strawman arguments, appeals to authority, unsupported opinions, etc, etc in place of 'terse & technical' comments related to specific results reported in this thread


"The person who says it cannot be done, should not interrupt the person doing it"

np

[tinman]

Hi NP
Hope you dont mind me posting this here,but it is in regards to some flyback testing i have been doing on a coil for another project.

This coil differs from most,as it has a PM for the core,and is giving some very interesting results.

The measurements taken below do not include the power dissipated by the LED,but only the power flowing into C1 from the source,and then the power flowing out of C1 into the coil.

The calculated power from C1 is only calculating the power delivered by C1 to the coil when the transistor switches on-->duty cycle is 5%.
This is far greater than the power being delivered to C1 by the source.

So there is more power flowing through the coil,than there is being delivered by the source.
This means that the magnetic field being built by the coil is far greater than that that could be built by the supplied power from the source. And as i stated above,this is not including the power being dissipated by the LED.

I am not sure whether RMS or average values are used to calculate power in this case?.
Maybe void could shed some light on this.


Brad

[nul-points]

Hi NP
Hope you dont mind me posting this here,but it is in regards to some flyback testing i have been doing on a coil for another project.

This coil differs from most,as it has a PM for the core,and is giving some very interesting results.

The measurements taken below do not include the power dissipated by the LED,but only the power flowing into C1 from the source,and then the power flowing out of C1 into the coil.

The calculated power from C1 is only calculating the power delivered by C1 to the coil when the transistor switches on-->duty cycle is 5%.
This is far greater than the power being delivered to C1 by the source.

So there is more power flowing through the coil,than there is being delivered by the source.
This means that the magnetic field being built by the coil is far greater than that that could be built by the supplied power from the source. And as i stated above,this is not including the power being dissipated by the LED.

I am not sure whether RMS or average values are used to calculate power in this case?.
Maybe void could shed some light on this.


Brad

mind you cr@pping all over my thread again?  no, of course i don't...

...as long as you don't mind me returning the favour on one of yours


If your results have any merit, then i recommend that you start your own thread about them - that way your friend Void can go there and comment about them all he likes...

...and he won't be getting a hard time again here


thanks for asking

np

[tinman]

mind you cr@pping all over my thread again?  no, of course i don't...

...as long as you don't mind me returning the favour on one of yours


If your results have any merit, then i recommend that you start your own thread about them - that way your friend Void can go there and comment about them all he likes...

...and he won't be getting a hard time again here


thanks for asking

np

Enjoy